The value of national arthroplasty registry data in 2023

Baker, Paul; Jeyapalan, Rathan; Jameson, Simon

doi:10.1302/0301-620x.105b4.bjj-2022-1190.r2

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most registries do not record which surgeon actually completed the procedure or their level of experience and training and the degree of supervision for residents/registrars/fellows when they were performing some or all of the procedure. The surgeon may be more important than the prosthesis in defining the risk of revision surgery 20,22,33,34 . Similarly, improved recording of length of stay (for example day case procedure) and patient factors, such as certain medical comorbidities, are particularly important in modern surgery where it can be restricted for patients because of BMI, glycemic control, and other factors 35 .…”

Section: Primary Tha and Tka Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Review of Data Collection by National Joint Replacement Registries

Hoskins,

Bingham,

Vince

2023

JBJS Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: National joint replacement registries assist surgeons and hospitals with guiding decision making and quality of care. The data points collected are essential to interpret and analyze data and to understand confounding variables and other sources of bias, which can impair retrospective observational research. The aim of this study was to review all national joint replacement registries to assess what data points are recorded, and in what manner, for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) so that improvements can be made to enhance data collection, interpretation, and analysis. Methods: All national registries were identified through Internet and publication search and contacted to invite participation. Data collection forms for both primary and revision THA and TKA were requested. Data collected were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Results: The study group for primary and revision THA consisted of 28 national registries, with 26 agreeing to participate. The study group for primary TKA consisted of 27 national registries, with 24 agreeing to participate. Patient identification details were recorded uniformly. Only a minority recorded patient details beyond American Society of Anesthesiologists and body mass index. Most registries did not record surgeon variables: who actually performed or assisted the procedure and their level of training. There was variation in the degree of detail recorded for diagnosis, mostly regarding secondary causes of osteoarthritis and fracture. The details regarding case complexity were limited. Half recorded previous operations, and fewer recorded bone defects. The location of knee arthritis, preoperative limb alignment, and deformities were rarely recorded. Surgical approach and technological adjuncts were routinely collected, but few other details on the surgical technique were recorded. Implant details and fixation were uniformly collected, although a minority recorded specific details, including cement antibiotic or cementing technique. It was uncommon to record whether additional or adjunctive procedures were concurrently performed. Approximately half the registries lacked a revision specific form. The majority recorded reoperations in addition to revision procedures. Patient, surgeon, case, and postoperative details were recorded similar to primary procedures. There was variation in the degree of details recorded for the reasons underlying the revision +/− reoperation, with most recording greater detail for infection and fracture. Many included details on case complexity and bone defects, including the severity, classification, and how the defect was managed. The majority recorded the specific revision procedure that was performed (total or partial), the fixation used, and the components removed or revised. Other specific aspects of fixation including acetabular screws, cone or sleeve use, stems, and augments were less commonly recorded. Conclusion: Substantial data are recorded by all registries, although each one is different. Data solicited lack many patient factors, surgeon variables, case complexity, and surgical techniques. Separate revision forms are not universal, and many registries do not record reoperation procedures, specific causes of revision, and the revision construct. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

show abstract

Section: Primary Tha and Tka Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Factors beyond the prosthesis influence the outcome of surgery profoundly, perhaps to a greater extent than the prosthesis itself 19,20 . Known (and unknown) variables of patients, surgeons, and surgical technique influence whether, or when, an arthroplasty will require revision surgery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Data Collection by National Joint Replacement Registries

Hoskins,

Bingham,

Vince

2023

JBJS Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baker et al 7 also update us on the current value of national arthroplasty registry data. These data have moved on significantly in their validity and utility during the last decade, partly through challenges from the editorial community.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%